DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and 9-11 in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term “Micromeritics” and “ASAP”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the trademark/trade name “Micromeritics ASAP 2460”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “turned over several times slowly” is unclear how many times “several” encompasses. Is there a number below or above the number of turns that would be outside the range of “several”? Furthermore, the term “slowly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 contains the limitation “such as” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 contains the limitation “and in particular” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 contains the limitation “homopolymer, copolymer and/or a non-halogenated elastomer”. It is not clear what these limitations are intended to refer: are these modifiers to the claimed PVDF or a separate polymer?
Claims 2-6 and 9-11 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordere et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2009/0176924) in view of Fiffemeier et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2014/0001416).
Regarding claim 1, Bordere et al. discloses a pulverulent composition based on carbon nanotubes which includes 20-95% carbon nanotubes that are mixed with 5-80% of a compound A material which may be a polymer material. (Abstract, par. [0027]-[0029]). The relative amount of carbon nanotube and polymer therefore overlaps with the presently claimed mass ratio. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The carbon nanotube and polymer mixture is provided in a powder form (par. [0091]) having a loose density of 0.116 to 0.604 g/ml. (Table 12), overlapping with the presently claimed range. While the loose density in Bordere et al. is not disclosed to be measured according the process involving the use of a Micromeritics ASAP 2460 instrument and the cylinder as claimed, it would be expected that the method of measuring the loose density of the composition of Bordere et al. to yield substantially identical values for the loose density of the powder. Bordere et al. further discloses that the polymer material used in the pulverulent composition may include polyvinylpyrrolidone (par. [0033] and [0039]).
Bordere et al. does not disclose the apparent specific surface area of the pulverulent composition.
Fiffemeier et al. teaches a method of producing a powdery polymer/carbon nanotube mixture (Abstract). Fiffemeier et al. teaches that a suitable surface area of the polymer/carbon nanotube composite material should lie in the range of 25-400 m2/g (par. [0041]), overlapping with the presently claimed range. Fiffemeier et al. teaches that within this surface area range, the carbon nanotubes are considered to not have been shortened which would be undesirable for electrode material applications. (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the surface area of the pulverulent composition of Bordere et al. to lie within the claimed range of Fiffemeier et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the surface area of the pulverulent composition of Bordere et al. in order to ensure that the carbon nanotubes are not shortened or damaged which would render them undesirable for electrode materials. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that based on the disclosure of Fiffemeier et al. that the disclosed surface area is suitable or preferred for forming polymer/carbon nanotube powdered materials, that a similar surface area for the composition Bordere et al. would be equally desirable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that selecting the surface area range of Fiffemeier et al. would result in improved results based on the similar composition and shape of the products in both the primary and secondary references.
Regarding claim 6, Bordere et al. teaches inclusion of PVDF. (par. [0033] and [0127]).
Regarding claims 9-11, Bordere et al. teaches the use of the pulverulent composition to form an electrode and therefore a battery. (par. [0111]).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordere et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2009/0176924) in view of Fiffemeier et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2014/0001416), further in view of Ulbrich et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2016/0020466).
Bordere in view of Fiffemeier et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 2, Bordere in view of Fiffemeier et al. does not disclose a molecular weight of polyvinylpyrrolidone in the range of 20,000 to 60,000 g/mol as claimed.
Ulbrich et al. teaches a carbon nanotube-containing dispersion for use in manufacturing electrodes (Abstract). The dispersion includes a dispersing aid including polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) which has a molecular weight less than 200,000 g/mol, preferably 25,000-75,000 g/mol, overlapping with the presently claimed range. (par. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select PVP having a molecular weight of less than 200,000 g/mol, preferably 25,000-75,000 g/mol when PVP is selected as the polymer material in the pulverulent composition in Bordere et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use PVP having a molecular weight in the range disclosed in Ulbrich et al. given that PVP having a molecular weight less than 200,000 g/mol is known to function as dispersant for carbon nanotubes and that the preferred range of 25,000-75,000 g/mol would be expected to result in improved properties for the pulverulent composition of Bordere et al.
Regarding claim 3, Bordere et al. discloses including conductive filler materials such as carbon black with the pulverulent composition. (par. [0021]). However, Bordere et al. does not disclose the relative amount of carbon nanotube to carbon black.
Ulbrich et al. also teaches inclusion of carbon black along with carbon nanotubes for forming an electrode composition (Abstract, par. [0029]) wherein the relative amount of carbon nanotube to carbon black lies in the range of 1:10 to 10:1 for the purpose of improve conductivity of the composition, the pore structure of the composition and a beneficial cost saving. (par. [0029]). The range in Ulrich et al. overlaps with the presently claimed range.
It would have been obvious to include carbon black in an amount relative to carbon nanotube as disclosed in Ulbrich et al. in the pulverulent composition of Bordere et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include carbon black in the amount disclosed in Ulbrich et al. in order to improve the material properties of the pulverulent composition with respect to conductivity, pore structure and cost for making a composition for use as an electrode.
Regarding claims 4-5, Bordere et al. does not disclose the inclusion of an organic carbonate as claimed or a lithium species as claimed
Ulbrich et al. teaches that the composition as an electrode may be combined with an electrolyte including LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate) with an organic carbonate such as ethylene carbonate/dimethyl carbonate. (par. [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the composition of Bordere et al. with an electrolyte including LiPF6 and ethylene carbonate/dimethyl carbonate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the composition of Bordere et al. with LiPF6 and ethylene carbonate/dimethyl carbonate in order to form an electrolyte that is compatible with the electrode material for forming a medium which allows the movement of electrically charged ions between the anode and cathode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/14/2026
Prosecution Insights